On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 21:43 +0100, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
> Jed Donnelley wrote:
> > For example, I think the discussion of the results of the Cambridge
> > Cap work is important.
>> Why?
Serious answer: because the Cambridge Cap system actually worked -- at
least when Andrew's third attempt at a capability cache was
incorporated. It was horribly underpublished even in research circles,
so spreading the word seems like a good thing.
> The idea that you can conclude anything significant about an access
> control model from a perceived failure (leaving aside whether Cap
> actually was a failure) of a single OS project that used that model
> is *utter nonsense*.
Yep. Smart people are really good at doing convincing nonsense. Butler
is not an exception to this.
shap